Visualisation tools – update

Some weeks ago I wrote a post about vizualization tools focusing on what could be useful for quantitative and qualitative researchers alike. I have mentioned then that my favorite was IMB’s ManyEyes platform. An update to that post is needed but this time I’ll be focusing on chart and diagram making applications. Below is a chart of all the sites I have found. It is an easy way to compare their offer. I will make some additional comments about the quality of the images they produce.

Creately and Gliffy have the most varied offer followed closely by LovelyCharts. Design-wise, my favorite is LovelyCharts but for paying 29 Euros/year for the premium version I would like to have the opportunity to exclude their logo. Apple does it on all their products, so why shouldn’t they? Also, for a premium version I would like to see the audio recording option that Flowcharts and iCharts are both offering. 

Essentially, all these online platforms offer an interpretation for software and programs that already exist be they licensed by Microsoft, Apple or be they OpenSource. It is nice though to have some design alternatives. It is even nicer to be offered the opportunity to collaborate on documents and share them later either by embedding them on third-party websites on by emailing them to people. This is where the advantage of these platforms is. 

Happy diagraming!

Just to make sure, here are the links to all platforms I mentioned:

Creately.com, Chartle.net, lovelycharts.com, chartgizmo.com, archimy.com, gliffy.com, icharts.com, flowchart.com, drawanywhere.com, orgplus.com

Interactive timelines

Timelines are important and necessary visual elements that make any presentation that encompasses any historical information – be it personal, institutional, national or be it related to recently or long passed times -. Luckily there are a couple of platforms out there, free of charge, that researchers can use to make their work more appealing as well as to give it an extra visual dimension. 

I would say that there are two categories of timeline visualization tools: 

• those that aggregate information already present online that they aggregate using an integrated search engine  such as Dipity, Viewzi or Spacetime 3D
• those that allow users to create their own timelines such as TimeToast, XTimeline, LifeSnapz or LifeBlob.

I’ll try to take them one by one and highlight some of their features. I’ll start with one of my favorites, a new way to experience search as they like to call it, Viewzi,

Starting from simple search topics, the platform offers plenty visualization options, all a click away. One can choose between web screen shot, simple text, power grid, google timeline, viewzi news or 4 news sources, photo tag cloud, photos, videos from Joost, YouTube and Viddler, all these great for media/communication/historical research. There are some more fun options such recipes, weather, celebrity gossip and everyday shopping. 

Thanks to their use of Adobe Flash (c) technology the timelines that Viewzi creates are crisp and refined. I’ve put here an example of photo tags that I have generated based on a long search “beijing 2008 olympic games human rights”. I was allowed to move the main tags around which triggered even more information to be shown as well as links between notions. The graph shows that the notions of olympic games, china and human rights are interdependent and inter-related.  

When you start using it, do take some time to read the “more info” on each visualization option. It will tell you where the data comes from, who loves it and how it was rated.  You’ll also get some recommendations for what the visualizations provided work best. Although it is not clear to me yet, creating an account might be necessary as well as give you access to additional features. 

Dipity aggregates its data from on a “combination of search services and APIs to pull in content from across the web that has been posted to popular websites like YouTube, Flickr, Digg and DayLife” and is making available all timelines via RSS. What is really nice Dipity is that it allows merging two topics, or two timelines giving plenty of comparison opportunities to researchers. It does requires users to create an account though. 

Dipity also has some big plans for the near future. The website promises to come up soon with printing options as well as with more options for those users interested in generating their own timelines based on their own datasets. Furthermore, sharing and embedding options are also in the works. 

Finally, similar with the web visualization of Viewzi you can see your results in a website-flip format using SpaceTime3D

 TimeToast is among the newest timeline makers online and does exactly what is says: allows you to create timelines and share them on the web. Timelines can be bookmarked, shared or embedded.

It’s the same that XTimeline wants to do though being in a beta stage and having just recently launched there are no examples to look at yet. 

LifeSnapz would be, in my opinion, better for online collective photo albums since it allows multiple users to update the same timeline. It supports video and maps as well and has a comment options.  It is specially addressed to families but researchers looking into family genealogies or oral history projects might give it a thought. 

Finally, LifeBlob has more of a community feel to it but its offer is intended to reach beyond personal use, colleges, companies and researchers being invited to use the platform as well.  It has a different look, a bit more polished and professional compared to TimeToast but similar sharing options. Below is an example the platform provides. 

LifeBlob Academy Award for Best Actress’s Timeline:

Whatever your research, remember that web 2.0 always has a solution to visualize it.

IOCFSPD – closing words

While we should always be critical and realistic we should never be cynical. the IOC will do whatever it can for the nobel goal we are defending.

IOCFSPD – report of rapporteurs and closing session

 

The report is based on the presentations, speeches and keynote addresses given yesterday and today. Lord Colin Moynihan is now reading some ideas from Jacques Rogge’s, IOC President, address from yesterday and it looks like he’ll continue to summarize the presentations of yesterday, or at lest that he was made responsible to report on. He is reviewing also the questions posed during the sessions. 

Patrick Bauman, from Switzerland, is now giving his review, starting with Frankie Fredericks presentation from yesterday. 

It is often stressed, as in the days and hours before, the positive example that sport provides and the dangers of inactive youth highlighted by reminding some of the alarming data from the WHO presentation. Dr Talbot’s presentation is again addressed, after Lord Moynihan just mentioned through a joke that he didn’t agree with it, making me think that the issue of gender and sex stereotyping in the world of sports although told me dealt with without discrimination is still rather a taboo. 

Lord Moynihan now started to speak again reviewing the morning talks. Mr Verbruggen’s keynote is mentioned for its ideas on legacy and the IOCs need to engage and collaborate with political bodies and figures to help IOCs mission but no word is said about Verburggen’s mention that certain NGO, pushing their agenda, tried to make the IOC accountable for human rights issues around the world. 

Erica Terpstra, chair of this morning’s session on legacy and education, is speaking now about the other great speakers from her panel: Mario Pescante, Ser Miang Ng and Markus Pilgrim concluding that the meetings these days were a call to action.

Mr Bauman now continues summarizing the last session, the one I missed due to another commitment, that was about capitalizing on partnerships and networking.Political nationalism may sometime be excessive but unavoidable in the Olympic Games, according to Yasushi Akashi, former UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator and now Chairman of the Japan Centre for Conflict Prevention. Other presentations focused o the aid for development through sport, two speakers bring relatively different views – Dr Pal Schmidt, IOC Vice-President and EU Parliament member bringing the Eu view while Mr Subramonia Anathakrishnan, Chief of Partners and Youth Branch of UN-Habitat bringing the UN-habitat view. The last presentation of the last session was given by Christopher Lamb, Special Adviser, International Relations, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. He advised checking the content and motivation of the partners and not be content only with the memos and partnerships signed. 

Many examples from and related to African countries were given throughout the days making me think that Africa as a general topic is increasingly important for the IOC and probably becoming as much of a focus as the dramatic decrease of involvement in physical activities by youths. 

The recommendations, some of them, presented by Lord Moyniham, are therefore as follows:

1. stress the importance of the first ever holding of this forum – emphasize that sport has the power to enhance peace building 

2. the Olympic Movement (OM) and its partners cooperate whenever possible to use sport to overcome increasing problems of this world 

4. the OM will use its influence to political influence to promote peace 

5. OM supports dialogue between nations and individuals and strive to achieve dignity for all individual and people

6. seek  to promote equal opportunities for women as a fundamental human right

7. the OM should strive to achieve peace through the works of the Olympic Truce 

12. this first forum, should be the first step towards future addition of other such meetings not further than two years apart

These, and the other recommendations, were approved by applause by those in the room.  

 

IOCFDSP – Question for Mr. Verbruggen

Byron Peacock, a friend of mine and master’s student at the Graduate Institute of International and Development studies in Geneva gave me this in reaction to Mr Verbruggen intervention and speech earlier this morning. I am inserting here, without any changes, his comment and question. I have to say though, that due to Mr. Verburuggen’s other commitments and the need for him to leave before the session ended, this question was not asked in the room. 

Mr. Verbruggen, I feel that a legitimate question must be asked about the IOC’s repeated assertion that the practice of sport is a human right. Although sport is not recognized as a human right is any legally binding international instruments the IOC does depend on other human rights such as the right to private peaceable assembly, and the right to freedom of expression and we see how the IOC reacts when these rights are infringed as when it took action against Iraq last year and when it had to scramble immediately before the Beijing games last year when the freedom of expression was severely limited in contravention of Olympic standards. Although issues of human rights are admittedly very complex and I would agree that the IOC should make an effort to stay out of highly controversial political issues (since these are clearly not their areas of expertise or operation), how can the IOC advocate among governments that sport should be a human right if is no place for a human rights discourse in Olympism? I believe, for example, that President Rogge and former VP Pound have implied in interviews since the Beijing Games, that HR considerations will have to play a role in future Games. Is that a possible future for the IOC?